Second to last comment to you. I give up. You are too stubborn to use logic on. You also throw the word ignorant around. When clearly I am no more ignorant than you. Also jeremiah 8:8 says:
How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.
It means they don't follow their own laws.
I ask you the same question again and again but you do not answer. Why should we trust Muhammed over anyone else?
@zoulkyud I don't care who you trust, but it would be wise to trust someone not because they were the first you knew about. I trust what makes most sense to me.
Jeremiah 8:8 shows that the pen of the scribes have altered the law. The pen does not follow the law, people do.
Does it say they have altered anything. Take it in full context. Hebrew words must be translated into English. That being said the King James fully conveys the meaning. Its stating their pens write laws they themselves cannot follow. You are taking it completely out of context.
King James Bible:How do ye say, We [are] wise, and the law of the LORD [is] with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he [it]; the pen of the scribes [is] in vain.
bible.cc/jeremiah/8-8.htm
The context is the same irrespective of translation, and it means that scribes have tampered with the truth.
No it most certainly does not. Now you are the one showing ignorance. If this is what you cling to so be it. However your argument assumes Jeremiah and all the other prophets cannot reveal truth and only Muhammed can?
There are several arguments here. Read all of Jeremiah before hand. What jeremiah is saying but do not ignore what is said before hand.
"But my people do not know the requirements of the LORD. "
He is arguing they do not know how to follow his laws.
1. If the laws have been altered then how can they not follow them?
2. Would he not say the laws are unjust, or they have rewritten the law or twisted the law. Here you are assuming Jeremiah does not know what he is saying or that he is somehow incapable of doing anything to fix it. Nor any other prophet. So god is powerless until Muhammed?
3. So these same scribes who are in Jeremiahs time somehow altered the books following their time. They also painted Jesus as being the son of God and part of God (which is blasphemy in the jewish religion.) These same people who corrupted the law, stated that following it was not possible?
But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
@zoulkyud You would have seen the answers to your questions had you followed the link I gave you. There are many different translations, all pointing to the real meaning, that the writings had been altered.
I have earlier shown that Paul was the one who painted Jesus as God, and the gospels followed suit.
This argument does not work here either. First why would paul persecute a people for a belief, then following that join up an perpetuate said belief if it was false in the first place. You forgot Paul saw Christians as an abomination. Only after he was blinded and forced to realize the errors of his way did he become one. I saw your video about paul but you presented not one single verse or source.
Also you can scapegoat paul but what about all the other books?
You need evidence. Your video was entirely opinion. You state Paul created the trinity but present no evidence. Then you state it was something he could not understand, again with no scripture or verse to back it up. I am beginning to think the only verse you have ever read is Jeremiah 8:8 in a translation that suits you.
When I site the Quran I try to cite the verse for you. Your videos and comments don't seem to do this. I will ask that you please do the same.
Then read the text below. It is from the Syriac Infancy Gospel
date 500-600AD. The bible had been canonized well before these texts were written.
He has said that Jesus spoke, and, indeed, when He was lying in His cradle said to Mary His mother: I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Logos, whom thou hast brought forth, as the Angel Gabriel announced to thee; and my Father has sent me for the salvation of the world
Your whole argument in this video is foolish. Considering that the quran borrows also from the heretical texts of the Syriac Infancy Gospel. Which dates back to around 500-600 AD. Which in turn is a copy of the gospel of thomas (gnostic gospel dating to 200-300 AD) How is something where the oldest manuscript dating back to 60 AD less accurate?
@zoulkyud I think you are assuming that if the council of Nicaea did not canonize it, it is false. Did you know that the council almost excluded the book of James, the brother of Jesus? If that had not made it into the propaganda collection, it would have been apocryphal, isn't it?
All four gospels chosen by the old men of the council of Nicaea were inspired by the letters of Paul, the first one, Mark's gospel did not surface until after Paul's death. I take none of them to be absolute truth.
No I don't take much heed is writings that were post canonization. As in they were written well over 300 years after Christ and have no earlier sources. My point is why do we find the Syriac infancy gospels in Muhammads writings if they were divinely inspired. Its speaks of plagiarism much like many other religions. His sources are mostly apocryphal. Which were used by the gnostic. Paul stated there were known gospels in his letters.
@zoulkyud Inspiration cannot be limited to only what the council selected. What criteria was used to determine who was inspired or not?
BTW, you have conveniently ingored the points raised in the video, to create a strawman. I have been doing this for a long time. I know your tactics from a mile away.
This claim only proves muhammad as a liar. If an angel revealed these things to Muhammed why is it they copy almost word for word the syriac texts. Muhammed had a source which proves it was not divinely given. If I tell you something and tell someone else the exact same thing. Both will tell you the same basic story in different words. Not the exact same story. As for your obsession with the council, that is your argument. Mine is these books didn't exist until much later.
*sigh* there is no getting through to you. My point has nothing to do with the council. You are ignoring the fact the Muhammads sources are copies of text dated well beyond the original texts of pauls time. Your argument is foolish. You state the 4 books are too new to be valid but all of Muhammads works are based on copies of translations much older. You will disregard this and make a completely different argument because logic doesn't work with you and you are brainwashed.
@zoulkyud I only exposed the double standards in your argument. One set of narration is inspired because it is in your book. The ones that are not, are not inspired. None of the books of the New Testament was written by a disciple of Jesus, so I assume the conflicting accounts in some cases have something to do with inspiration.
Your argument is that because the oldest document of the 'infancy gospel' is much later, it is no doubt that recent. You are the one who presents a foolish argument.
Let me totally simplify this. Why is Muhammed more trust worthy than people who lived in or around Jesus time? Why is muhammed more trust worthy than every book of the Torah, and the Bible that he changed? Why should we trust muhammed at all. When he is one man and it is his word against both Jewish and Christian scholar.
There is an old saying.
"Truth is told by many. Lies are told by but a few."
@zoulkyud Another evasion of the topic of the video. It is even clear from the New Testament that what the gospels claim to be the words of Jesus, contradict those of Paul.
Muhammad(PBUH) did not change the Torah, but confirmed the truth in it. Talk about being brainwashed. You just throw out these oft refuted baseless arguments.
Uh excuse me. He changed the original stories. He did not confirm it. Ishmael was not the chosen son. If he confirmed the Torah why is the chosen son ishmael in the Quran. However in the Torah and the Bible both it is Isaac. Talk about being brainwashed and dubious indeed.
I ask you again, why should I trust Muhammad over all the other writers, who lived in or closer to Jesus time? Can you not answer my question?
@zoulkyud Please stop throwing around the word 'brainwash' when you clearly don't know what it means. The fact that something is written in the Bible does not automatically make it the truth. The first child Abraham(pbuh) had was Ishmael. If God wanted to test him, it is only logical that he would test him with the only child he had. The only time he had an only child was when Ishameal was born, and for 14 years.
Jeremiah 8:8 tells you why you cannot trust everything in the Bible.
So according to you, every single writer of the Torah and the Bible was wrong. Even though both books follow the same path. I ask another question. If Muhammad knows the truth, then his science shall ring true.
So according to Muhammad we reproduce from the kidneys, and stars are set in the sky. (which they change position and are not a layer of our atmosphere.)
Paul never slept with a 9 year old girl. He also stated it is better to be celibate and single then married for no reason. Muhammad is quite selfish which to me does not speak of any prophet, only profit.
Also Muhammad made sure his book was preserved quite well as it was his rule of law. If you consider he reshaped the entire history of the bible to remove all sin from all prophets and people of the bible. Any argument is dubious at best. Show me one muslim without sin in his heart who has sinned against no one. Then I will bow down and worship Allah instead of Yahweh as my god. I say this with certainty as no man is sinless.
Let me simplify this. I am not going to watch all 6 parts of the series. I dont have the time and first part proved to be just drivel. The most damning part of islam is it contains the story of Satan and angels rebelling against god. The problem with this is it was originally written by the catholics. Muhammed put it into the Quran. Iblis story is the same story where an angel rebels against god. The problem is the only reference in the bible is Isaiah 14:12.
The Quran borrows from old apocryphal text which is insulting. An attempt to explain Isaiah 14:12. which in fact is referring to a Babylonian king which can be seen in line 14:4. This is the same text which lead to extra biblical writings of lucifer being the devil. If the Quran was true it would not contain the story of a rogue angel. It does so it is false. Angels only serve god and do not fall from grace. Sorry.
@zoulkyud Please stop pretending you know what you don't. Iblis is not an angel like Christians believe, but a Jinn. You claim it is in Isaiah, they in the same breath claim it is apocryphal. You are confused.
No you are confused. Regardless of your belief. You must realize Muhammed has taken his writing from elsewhere and story from elsewhere. Jinn, and Angels are merely a twist on words. Also my point was Muhammed took sources from other writings. If it was divinely inspired then why is the majority of his texts taken from syrianic writings. If you say "get your facts straight" or "you are confused" one more time you merely prove me right. Use actual facts and arguments please.
@zoulkyud I believe that Muhammad(pbuh) was inspired. Jinn and angels are not a twist on words which proves your ignorance.
I believe that the 'infancy gospels' were divinely inspired. It is funny that you believe that Paul was inspired to write his letters, and express his take on the nature of Jesus, but inspiration ended with Paul, more so since the council of Nicaea convened, nobody else could be inspired. You defeat your own point adequately.
Age of consent is not expressly given of the bible. However to say because it doesn't specifically give an age of consent that it somehow endorses muhammads behavior is incorrect. Part of the bible is history and part is gods law. However a simple question is how many prophets have child wives? Jesus and many of his disciples never married. Find me a verse where god endorses marrying children if you wish to claim it was ok for Muhammed to do so.
@zoulkyud The fact that age of consent was not expressly given in the Bible means that there society is left to determine what the age of consent is. How old was Mary when she was pregnant with Jesus?
You assume that somehow that means that its ok to marry off a young child to an adult. It doesn't. Arranged marriage would assume it can be consummated when a girl is ready. If you consider a 9 year old being ready to understand sex fully. That is your choice.
Mary remained a virgin when she was pregnant with Jesus, she did not have sex so your whole argument there is invalid. If young girls could get pregnant without sex you would have an argument.
@zoulkyud One of the main purposes of marriage is for procreation, not just sex. The question is at what age does the Lord of the worlds consider a female old enough to bear a child? Amongst other women, there would be sex before pregnancy, before childbirth.
Does go approve of every marriage. The answer is no. This is evident in both what happened with Solomon and the book of Ezra. Marrying outsiders and praying to their pagan gods. This is just one example to show that god does not choose who you marry and how. Does that mean he approves? I believe the answer would be no. It is up to the father, not god the father. His poor choices do not reflect upon god neither do the husbands.
@zoulkyud One of the first things that happened in humanity was marriage(Adam&Eve). Not internet or pornography. I believe that God would be gracious to someone who marries, rather than commit fornication or adultery. So, I believe its a big deal.
So being married and consummating said marriage with a child who has not gone through puberty. Is fine according to you? The average age of puberty is 12 by the way. Even 10 or 11 years old is very early. Although we are told he was married to her at 7.
@zoulkyud You assume that she has not gone through puberty without any knowledge or proof. In her own words she had reached puberty at the beginning of the prophethood of Muhammad(pbuh).
No matter what point I make you seemingly ignore it or attempt to twist things around. For that I must simply say . Proverbs 26:5
I ask you again, give me any reason why we should trust Muhammed over anyone else. Besides your vain attempts to prove his prophecies true which parts of which you ignore. Like the stars being part of our Atmosphere. If you cannot answer why I should trust him, you are only preaching to the already converted and all these videos are pointless.
@zoulkyud I would repeat my answer. I don't care who you trust, but before I made my decision, I made a comparison of what I thought more credible. What is consistent with reality.
I am sure there is no saying that stars are part of our atmosphere. If your claim is about things that are not congruent with our reality, there are tons in the Bible, so your lack of trust for Muhammad(pbuh) cannot be about that.
I mean no disrespect from what I say it is merely my opinion. That being said even if the bible did get things wrong, how does this make Muhammed right?
One does not prove the other. More so the argument can be made if the bible has multiple authors and gets things partially right, that it is not entirely false, since being that it was not authored by one man. If Muhammed gets one important thing wrong, all the credibility of the whole Quran is gone.
@zoulkyud None taken. There are names of some of those companions that I can find, but that is irrelevant. If you need the source/author, it is God, the channel, Muhammad(pbuh) that's why the person documenting it is irrelevant.
Your argument is dubious at best. Pauls letters to multiple churches were preserved better than the original writings of the apostles. The original manuscripts are much like original Torah. They predate Islam by many many years. The material used for writing was not the same. Hence it very easily breaking down. The dead sea scrolls confirm this as even as they were incredibly preserved they too break down. Unlike the quran none of the new testament writes claimed to be a prophet.
If you were A Christian this BIBLE would make sence to you..I have never seen Christians in a Large crowd shouting nuke every one who is not a Christian. I just watched a video on you tube from 2004 muslims in england hell bent to nuke europe denmark USA dont they realize there are alot of muslims in other Countrys They want to forceably push there Belief on the world through violence
Like little kids throwing tantrums. Jesus Teaches love your enemies.
@meanring69 If I were a Christian, and I had accepted the Bible without any critical view, it would make sense to me. You and I should be able to look at our scriptures with a critical view, and see how well it stands against criticism, instead of changing the topic.
Nothing here was assumed. Every quote is exactly as it is in the Bible. Nothing taken out of context. I only asked questions that someone like you, who has obviously "stud[ied] more on the Bible" can shed some light on.
Ok. You go to Malachi 3:1 and say that this is not referring to Jesus yet Jesus did the very thing that is said there in Malachi 3:1. Did Jesus not go to the Temple? Who else could this have referred to? Also, there is something in Bible prophecy called double fufillment. For example, John the Baptist did come before Jesus and Jesus did come to His Temple. The next verses 2-5 were not fufilled because they will be fufilled at Jesus's second coming.
Again, Isaiah 40:3 is not taken out of context but Isaiah 40 is a double fufillment. Malachi 4:5 says: "See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes." Elijah was supposed to come before the Lord. This will literally be fufilled at Jesus Christ's 2nd Coming. John the Baptist came in the spirit and power of Elijah. The comparisons between the 2 (apart from miracles)are obvious. So John preceded Jesus at His 1st Coming and Elijah precede will His 2nd.
Of course I believe it. I wouldn't be a Christian if I did not believe it. You think that the NT is dubious but it is not. Jesus Christ actually lived and He actually died on the cross. Then He rose from the dead. The Apostles were witnesses to this event. Indeed, the book of 1 Corinthians makes clear that over 500 people actually saw the resurrected Jesus Christ. The Apostles died for their testimony. Someone will not die for a lie.
That is because it will be too late at His Second Coming. When the Beast instills his Mark those who take it will be damned. This is coming, only those who are not afraid to die will not take the Mark of the Beast. True Christians will not take that mark, we will die first. We await the return of the Lord Jesus Christ.
We are able nail the Zionist lie on their own coffins. Their survival depends on the biggest lie they can invent or they are dead, the time will come for the Christian West to treat them like the dangerous criminals who are the enemy of the planet earth. So far they have only chased them from Europe capitals, they only support them but they don't trust these criminals. Who will use all kinds of black magic and forgery to destroy the world.
There is no evidence for the existence of the four gospels before the year 150, nor is there any legitimate prophecy of Jesus in the Old Testament. Moreover, the "crucifixion" is not predicted anywhere in the Old Testament, the concept of 'dying rising god' is based on the sun-god myth. The True gospel is embedded in the Quran, the Final Revelation that supersedes the Torah and Gospel.
With all due respect, if you say you cannot trust something 150 years after the fact, how can you trust something written some 700 years after the fact. Also, there is no Quran in existence today that actually dates from the time of Muhammad. Am I not right about this? iheard that the earliest we have of it dates from something like the 9th century. What is the oldest manuscrupt?
That exists only in the minds of Christian apologists who are desperate to make a point. Writings from 150 years from the fact, which provide no sources, or chain of narrators, and have the content shown in this series, are dubious. The revelation 700 years later is perfectly intact, with no errors. What's more? It contains verses consistent with modern science.
Second to last comment to you. I give up. You are too stubborn to use logic on. You also throw the word ignorant around. When clearly I am no more ignorant than you. Also jeremiah 8:8 says:
How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.
It means they don't follow their own laws.
I ask you the same question again and again but you do not answer. Why should we trust Muhammed over anyone else?
zoulkyud 1 year ago
@zoulkyud I don't care who you trust, but it would be wise to trust someone not because they were the first you knew about. I trust what makes most sense to me.
Jeremiah 8:8 shows that the pen of the scribes have altered the law. The pen does not follow the law, people do.
webdawah 1 year ago
@webdawah
Does it say they have altered anything. Take it in full context. Hebrew words must be translated into English. That being said the King James fully conveys the meaning. Its stating their pens write laws they themselves cannot follow. You are taking it completely out of context.
zoulkyud 1 year ago
@zoulkyud
English Standard Version (©2001):“How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.
King James Bible:How do ye say, We [are] wise, and the law of the LORD [is] with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he [it]; the pen of the scribes [is] in vain.
bible.cc/jeremiah/8-8.htm
The context is the same irrespective of translation, and it means that scribes have tampered with the truth.
webdawah 1 year ago
@webdawah
No it most certainly does not. Now you are the one showing ignorance. If this is what you cling to so be it. However your argument assumes Jeremiah and all the other prophets cannot reveal truth and only Muhammed can?
There are several arguments here. Read all of Jeremiah before hand. What jeremiah is saying but do not ignore what is said before hand.
"But my people do not know the requirements of the LORD. "
He is arguing they do not know how to follow his laws.
zoulkyud 1 year ago
@zoulkyud ...because the laws have been altered.
webdawah 1 year ago
@webdawah
1. If the laws have been altered then how can they not follow them?
2. Would he not say the laws are unjust, or they have rewritten the law or twisted the law. Here you are assuming Jeremiah does not know what he is saying or that he is somehow incapable of doing anything to fix it. Nor any other prophet. So god is powerless until Muhammed?
zoulkyud 1 year ago
@webdawah
3. So these same scribes who are in Jeremiahs time somehow altered the books following their time. They also painted Jesus as being the son of God and part of God (which is blasphemy in the jewish religion.) These same people who corrupted the law, stated that following it was not possible?
But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
zoulkyud 1 year ago
@zoulkyud You would have seen the answers to your questions had you followed the link I gave you. There are many different translations, all pointing to the real meaning, that the writings had been altered.
I have earlier shown that Paul was the one who painted Jesus as God, and the gospels followed suit.
webdawah 1 year ago
@webdawah
This argument does not work here either. First why would paul persecute a people for a belief, then following that join up an perpetuate said belief if it was false in the first place. You forgot Paul saw Christians as an abomination. Only after he was blinded and forced to realize the errors of his way did he become one. I saw your video about paul but you presented not one single verse or source.
Also you can scapegoat paul but what about all the other books?
zoulkyud 1 year ago
@webdawah
You need evidence. Your video was entirely opinion. You state Paul created the trinity but present no evidence. Then you state it was something he could not understand, again with no scripture or verse to back it up. I am beginning to think the only verse you have ever read is Jeremiah 8:8 in a translation that suits you.
When I site the Quran I try to cite the verse for you. Your videos and comments don't seem to do this. I will ask that you please do the same.
zoulkyud 1 year ago
@zoulkyud I made a six part series on the 4 gospels, yet you claim I have not read the Bible?
Would it not be a smart move to corrupt the teachings of Jesus, and propagate them instead of trying to kill the followers of Jesus?
I have made the videos based on what I have read myself. Many of my videos do quote the Bible in detail. I don't feel like repeating myself.
webdawah 1 year ago
Comment removed
zoulkyud 1 year ago
Last comment
Read Surah 19:29-34
Then read the text below. It is from the Syriac Infancy Gospel
date 500-600AD. The bible had been canonized well before these texts were written.
He has said that Jesus spoke, and, indeed, when He was lying in His cradle said to Mary His mother: I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Logos, whom thou hast brought forth, as the Angel Gabriel announced to thee; and my Father has sent me for the salvation of the world
zoulkyud 1 year ago
Your whole argument in this video is foolish. Considering that the quran borrows also from the heretical texts of the Syriac Infancy Gospel. Which dates back to around 500-600 AD. Which in turn is a copy of the gospel of thomas (gnostic gospel dating to 200-300 AD) How is something where the oldest manuscript dating back to 60 AD less accurate?
Let me give you an example.
zoulkyud 1 year ago
@zoulkyud I think you are assuming that if the council of Nicaea did not canonize it, it is false. Did you know that the council almost excluded the book of James, the brother of Jesus? If that had not made it into the propaganda collection, it would have been apocryphal, isn't it?
All four gospels chosen by the old men of the council of Nicaea were inspired by the letters of Paul, the first one, Mark's gospel did not surface until after Paul's death. I take none of them to be absolute truth.
webdawah 1 year ago
@webdawah
No I don't take much heed is writings that were post canonization. As in they were written well over 300 years after Christ and have no earlier sources. My point is why do we find the Syriac infancy gospels in Muhammads writings if they were divinely inspired. Its speaks of plagiarism much like many other religions. His sources are mostly apocryphal. Which were used by the gnostic. Paul stated there were known gospels in his letters.
zoulkyud 1 year ago
@zoulkyud Inspiration cannot be limited to only what the council selected. What criteria was used to determine who was inspired or not?
BTW, you have conveniently ingored the points raised in the video, to create a strawman. I have been doing this for a long time. I know your tactics from a mile away.
webdawah 1 year ago
@webdawah
This claim only proves muhammad as a liar. If an angel revealed these things to Muhammed why is it they copy almost word for word the syriac texts. Muhammed had a source which proves it was not divinely given. If I tell you something and tell someone else the exact same thing. Both will tell you the same basic story in different words. Not the exact same story. As for your obsession with the council, that is your argument. Mine is these books didn't exist until much later.
zoulkyud 1 year ago
@webdawah
*sigh* there is no getting through to you. My point has nothing to do with the council. You are ignoring the fact the Muhammads sources are copies of text dated well beyond the original texts of pauls time. Your argument is foolish. You state the 4 books are too new to be valid but all of Muhammads works are based on copies of translations much older. You will disregard this and make a completely different argument because logic doesn't work with you and you are brainwashed.
zoulkyud 1 year ago
@zoulkyud I only exposed the double standards in your argument. One set of narration is inspired because it is in your book. The ones that are not, are not inspired. None of the books of the New Testament was written by a disciple of Jesus, so I assume the conflicting accounts in some cases have something to do with inspiration.
Your argument is that because the oldest document of the 'infancy gospel' is much later, it is no doubt that recent. You are the one who presents a foolish argument.
webdawah 1 year ago
@webdawah
I realize this argument is going to go nowhere.
Let me totally simplify this. Why is Muhammed more trust worthy than people who lived in or around Jesus time? Why is muhammed more trust worthy than every book of the Torah, and the Bible that he changed? Why should we trust muhammed at all. When he is one man and it is his word against both Jewish and Christian scholar.
There is an old saying.
"Truth is told by many. Lies are told by but a few."
zoulkyud 1 year ago
@zoulkyud Another evasion of the topic of the video. It is even clear from the New Testament that what the gospels claim to be the words of Jesus, contradict those of Paul.
Muhammad(PBUH) did not change the Torah, but confirmed the truth in it. Talk about being brainwashed. You just throw out these oft refuted baseless arguments.
webdawah 1 year ago
@webdawah
Uh excuse me. He changed the original stories. He did not confirm it. Ishmael was not the chosen son. If he confirmed the Torah why is the chosen son ishmael in the Quran. However in the Torah and the Bible both it is Isaac. Talk about being brainwashed and dubious indeed.
I ask you again, why should I trust Muhammad over all the other writers, who lived in or closer to Jesus time? Can you not answer my question?
zoulkyud 1 year ago
@zoulkyud Please stop throwing around the word 'brainwash' when you clearly don't know what it means. The fact that something is written in the Bible does not automatically make it the truth. The first child Abraham(pbuh) had was Ishmael. If God wanted to test him, it is only logical that he would test him with the only child he had. The only time he had an only child was when Ishameal was born, and for 14 years.
Jeremiah 8:8 tells you why you cannot trust everything in the Bible.
webdawah 1 year ago
@webdawah
So according to you, every single writer of the Torah and the Bible was wrong. Even though both books follow the same path. I ask another question. If Muhammad knows the truth, then his science shall ring true.
Qur'an, at-Tariq 86:7
Quran - 41:12
So according to Muhammad we reproduce from the kidneys, and stars are set in the sky. (which they change position and are not a layer of our atmosphere.)
zoulkyud 1 year ago
@zoulkyud Watch my video "from between the backbone and the ribs." It is rather enlightening.
webdawah 1 year ago
@webdawah
Paul never slept with a 9 year old girl. He also stated it is better to be celibate and single then married for no reason. Muhammad is quite selfish which to me does not speak of any prophet, only profit.
zoulkyud 1 year ago
Also Muhammad made sure his book was preserved quite well as it was his rule of law. If you consider he reshaped the entire history of the bible to remove all sin from all prophets and people of the bible. Any argument is dubious at best. Show me one muslim without sin in his heart who has sinned against no one. Then I will bow down and worship Allah instead of Yahweh as my god. I say this with certainty as no man is sinless.
zoulkyud 1 year ago
@zoulkyud I am not sure you watch the video, because your comment is unrelated.
webdawah 1 year ago
@webdawah
Let me simplify this. I am not going to watch all 6 parts of the series. I dont have the time and first part proved to be just drivel. The most damning part of islam is it contains the story of Satan and angels rebelling against god. The problem with this is it was originally written by the catholics. Muhammed put it into the Quran. Iblis story is the same story where an angel rebels against god. The problem is the only reference in the bible is Isaiah 14:12.
zoulkyud 1 year ago
@webdawah
The Quran borrows from old apocryphal text which is insulting. An attempt to explain Isaiah 14:12. which in fact is referring to a Babylonian king which can be seen in line 14:4. This is the same text which lead to extra biblical writings of lucifer being the devil. If the Quran was true it would not contain the story of a rogue angel. It does so it is false. Angels only serve god and do not fall from grace. Sorry.
zoulkyud 1 year ago
@zoulkyud Please stop pretending you know what you don't. Iblis is not an angel like Christians believe, but a Jinn. You claim it is in Isaiah, they in the same breath claim it is apocryphal. You are confused.
webdawah 1 year ago
@webdawah
No you are confused. Regardless of your belief. You must realize Muhammed has taken his writing from elsewhere and story from elsewhere. Jinn, and Angels are merely a twist on words. Also my point was Muhammed took sources from other writings. If it was divinely inspired then why is the majority of his texts taken from syrianic writings. If you say "get your facts straight" or "you are confused" one more time you merely prove me right. Use actual facts and arguments please.
zoulkyud 1 year ago
@zoulkyud I believe that Muhammad(pbuh) was inspired. Jinn and angels are not a twist on words which proves your ignorance.
I believe that the 'infancy gospels' were divinely inspired. It is funny that you believe that Paul was inspired to write his letters, and express his take on the nature of Jesus, but inspiration ended with Paul, more so since the council of Nicaea convened, nobody else could be inspired. You defeat your own point adequately.
webdawah 1 year ago
Comment removed
zoulkyud 1 year ago
@zoulkyud Paul never slep with a 9 year old, but what the your lord Jesus, say was the age on consent?
webdawah 1 year ago
@webdawah
Age of consent is not expressly given of the bible. However to say because it doesn't specifically give an age of consent that it somehow endorses muhammads behavior is incorrect. Part of the bible is history and part is gods law. However a simple question is how many prophets have child wives? Jesus and many of his disciples never married. Find me a verse where god endorses marrying children if you wish to claim it was ok for Muhammed to do so.
zoulkyud 1 year ago
@zoulkyud The fact that age of consent was not expressly given in the Bible means that there society is left to determine what the age of consent is. How old was Mary when she was pregnant with Jesus?
webdawah 1 year ago
@webdawah
You assume that somehow that means that its ok to marry off a young child to an adult. It doesn't. Arranged marriage would assume it can be consummated when a girl is ready. If you consider a 9 year old being ready to understand sex fully. That is your choice.
Mary remained a virgin when she was pregnant with Jesus, she did not have sex so your whole argument there is invalid. If young girls could get pregnant without sex you would have an argument.
zoulkyud 1 year ago
@zoulkyud One of the main purposes of marriage is for procreation, not just sex. The question is at what age does the Lord of the worlds consider a female old enough to bear a child? Amongst other women, there would be sex before pregnancy, before childbirth.
webdawah 1 year ago
@webdawah
Does go approve of every marriage. The answer is no. This is evident in both what happened with Solomon and the book of Ezra. Marrying outsiders and praying to their pagan gods. This is just one example to show that god does not choose who you marry and how. Does that mean he approves? I believe the answer would be no. It is up to the father, not god the father. His poor choices do not reflect upon god neither do the husbands.
zoulkyud 1 year ago
@zoulkyud That does not answer the question of the age of consent.
webdawah 1 year ago
Comment removed
zoulkyud 1 year ago
@webdawah
This argument does not work. Does god talk about the internet, pornography?
We are convicted in our soul.
zoulkyud 1 year ago
@zoulkyud One of the first things that happened in humanity was marriage(Adam&Eve). Not internet or pornography. I believe that God would be gracious to someone who marries, rather than commit fornication or adultery. So, I believe its a big deal.
webdawah 1 year ago
@webdawah
So being married and consummating said marriage with a child who has not gone through puberty. Is fine according to you? The average age of puberty is 12 by the way. Even 10 or 11 years old is very early. Although we are told he was married to her at 7.
zoulkyud 1 year ago
@zoulkyud You assume that she has not gone through puberty without any knowledge or proof. In her own words she had reached puberty at the beginning of the prophethood of Muhammad(pbuh).
So, what other arguments do you have?
webdawah 1 year ago
@webdawah
No matter what point I make you seemingly ignore it or attempt to twist things around. For that I must simply say . Proverbs 26:5
I ask you again, give me any reason why we should trust Muhammed over anyone else. Besides your vain attempts to prove his prophecies true which parts of which you ignore. Like the stars being part of our Atmosphere. If you cannot answer why I should trust him, you are only preaching to the already converted and all these videos are pointless.
zoulkyud 1 year ago
@zoulkyud I would repeat my answer. I don't care who you trust, but before I made my decision, I made a comparison of what I thought more credible. What is consistent with reality.
I am sure there is no saying that stars are part of our atmosphere. If your claim is about things that are not congruent with our reality, there are tons in the Bible, so your lack of trust for Muhammad(pbuh) cannot be about that.
webdawah 1 year ago
@webdawah
I mean no disrespect from what I say it is merely my opinion. That being said even if the bible did get things wrong, how does this make Muhammed right?
One does not prove the other. More so the argument can be made if the bible has multiple authors and gets things partially right, that it is not entirely false, since being that it was not authored by one man. If Muhammed gets one important thing wrong, all the credibility of the whole Quran is gone.
zoulkyud 1 year ago
@zoulkyud So can be said for the Bible, what's your argument?
webdawah 1 year ago
@webdawah
Better question who wrote the Quran?
zoulkyud 1 year ago
@zoulkyud The Qur'an is not a novel, neither does it read like one. It is a revelation.
For who wrote down the revelation, it was done by the learned companions of the prophet(pbuh).
webdawah 1 year ago
@webdawah
Again of offense. So it is not known who wrote it? The author is unknown?
zoulkyud 1 year ago
@zoulkyud
No offense.
zoulkyud 1 year ago
@zoulkyud None taken. There are names of some of those companions that I can find, but that is irrelevant. If you need the source/author, it is God, the channel, Muhammad(pbuh) that's why the person documenting it is irrelevant.
webdawah 1 year ago
Your argument is dubious at best. Pauls letters to multiple churches were preserved better than the original writings of the apostles. The original manuscripts are much like original Torah. They predate Islam by many many years. The material used for writing was not the same. Hence it very easily breaking down. The dead sea scrolls confirm this as even as they were incredibly preserved they too break down. Unlike the quran none of the new testament writes claimed to be a prophet.
zoulkyud 1 year ago
If you were A Christian this BIBLE would make sence to you..I have never seen Christians in a Large crowd shouting nuke every one who is not a Christian. I just watched a video on you tube from 2004 muslims in england hell bent to nuke europe denmark USA dont they realize there are alot of muslims in other Countrys They want to forceably push there Belief on the world through violence
Like little kids throwing tantrums. Jesus Teaches love your enemies.
meanring69 1 year ago
@meanring69 If I were a Christian, and I had accepted the Bible without any critical view, it would make sense to me. You and I should be able to look at our scriptures with a critical view, and see how well it stands against criticism, instead of changing the topic.
webdawah 1 year ago
this whole thing is thrash. you need to study more on the Bible and stop assuming you know something which is clear you do not...
MBI3030 3 years ago
Nothing here was assumed. Every quote is exactly as it is in the Bible. Nothing taken out of context. I only asked questions that someone like you, who has obviously "stud[ied] more on the Bible" can shed some light on.
Can you please do that?
webdawah 3 years ago
Ok. You go to Malachi 3:1 and say that this is not referring to Jesus yet Jesus did the very thing that is said there in Malachi 3:1. Did Jesus not go to the Temple? Who else could this have referred to? Also, there is something in Bible prophecy called double fufillment. For example, John the Baptist did come before Jesus and Jesus did come to His Temple. The next verses 2-5 were not fufilled because they will be fufilled at Jesus's second coming.
BudManInChrist 3 years ago
Again, Isaiah 40:3 is not taken out of context but Isaiah 40 is a double fufillment. Malachi 4:5 says: "See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes." Elijah was supposed to come before the Lord. This will literally be fufilled at Jesus Christ's 2nd Coming. John the Baptist came in the spirit and power of Elijah. The comparisons between the 2 (apart from miracles)are obvious. So John preceded Jesus at His 1st Coming and Elijah precede will His 2nd.
BudManInChrist 3 years ago
Do you believe this? I made these series for a reason... The Gospels are dubious at best.
webdawah 3 years ago
Of course I believe it. I wouldn't be a Christian if I did not believe it. You think that the NT is dubious but it is not. Jesus Christ actually lived and He actually died on the cross. Then He rose from the dead. The Apostles were witnesses to this event. Indeed, the book of 1 Corinthians makes clear that over 500 people actually saw the resurrected Jesus Christ. The Apostles died for their testimony. Someone will not die for a lie.
BudManInChrist 3 years ago
Not many people will die for a lie, but some will even if it is not intentional.
webdawah 3 years ago
... they would be fulfilled at Jesus' second coming? Please!
Why don't you wait until his second coming to convert people?
webdawah 3 years ago
That is because it will be too late at His Second Coming. When the Beast instills his Mark those who take it will be damned. This is coming, only those who are not afraid to die will not take the Mark of the Beast. True Christians will not take that mark, we will die first. We await the return of the Lord Jesus Christ.
BudManInChrist 3 years ago
Not convincing.
webdawah 3 years ago
it means the forgivness of sins(thru jesus)of course??? this is why jesus spoke in parables, so that those with ears could understand.
247Aztec 3 years ago
That wasn't even Jesus speaking. Who's sins would be forgiven? Jews alone?
webdawah 3 years ago
Salam. Good clip. I pray to GOD to guide us all. GOD bless you.
moji34 4 years ago
We are able nail the Zionist lie on their own coffins. Their survival depends on the biggest lie they can invent or they are dead, the time will come for the Christian West to treat them like the dangerous criminals who are the enemy of the planet earth. So far they have only chased them from Europe capitals, they only support them but they don't trust these criminals. Who will use all kinds of black magic and forgery to destroy the world.
AdorIslam 4 years ago
Very interesting, Jazzak Allahu Khayr
SFAproductions 4 years ago
There is no evidence for the existence of the four gospels before the year 150, nor is there any legitimate prophecy of Jesus in the Old Testament. Moreover, the "crucifixion" is not predicted anywhere in the Old Testament, the concept of 'dying rising god' is based on the sun-god myth. The True gospel is embedded in the Quran, the Final Revelation that supersedes the Torah and Gospel.
muslim9x9x 4 years ago
With all due respect, if you say you cannot trust something 150 years after the fact, how can you trust something written some 700 years after the fact. Also, there is no Quran in existence today that actually dates from the time of Muhammad. Am I not right about this? iheard that the earliest we have of it dates from something like the 9th century. What is the oldest manuscrupt?
Apocryphile1970 3 years ago
That exists only in the minds of Christian apologists who are desperate to make a point. Writings from 150 years from the fact, which provide no sources, or chain of narrators, and have the content shown in this series, are dubious. The revelation 700 years later is perfectly intact, with no errors. What's more? It contains verses consistent with modern science.
webdawah 3 years ago
Jazakallah brother for making this video....looking forward to part2 :)
Sammer1111 4 years ago
I appreciate every support, part 2 is in production, inshaAllah.
webdawah 4 years ago